User talk:Hauptman
Welcome Hi, welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the User talk:Italianfan88 page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! Tycio (talk) 09:29, April 6, 2015 (UTC) Panzer IV Hi hauptman, As our German tank experten, when I'll be done with the Panzer IV history, could you review it please ?? Because I'm trying to not being too pompous in details but I do that I think I put less than I thought. And could you tell what's the difference between Ausf.F2 and Ausf.G ? Because I read that Ausf.G was redesignated Ausf.F2 but it seems they're different models. Thanks Fox357magnum• • "I love Pasta"(Talk) 01:05, January 25, 2019 (UTC) Sure Fox, I'll have a look at it next week hen my body is a bit more capable of staying behind the pc for a couple of hours. I am still recovering from surgey. As for your second question, there is no actual difference. When the 7,5cm KwK 40 L/43 gun was ready for production, it was immediatly installed in the Panzer IV Ausf F of the 7.BW series then in production, thus making it necessary to make apart the two types on the production line. So in March 1942, the Ausf F vehicles with the short gun was renamed Ausf. F1 while those with the long gun was called Ausf. F2. Vehicles produced under new orders were called Ausf G (8. BW series). But there wasn't any difference between the Ausf. F2 and the first Ausf. Gs produced, they were exactly the same. To simplify matters, it was decided in May 1942 to redisignate the vehicles of the Ausf. F2 (7. BW series) as Ausf. G (8. BW series). This has caused a lot of confusion in the post-war years and armour historians and modelbuilders have tried to make sense of the two designations by looking for external differences. That is why some sources will claim that the Ausf. G can be identified by - The lack of vision ports on the side turret and right turret front. This was in fact a change introduced in April 1942 but not on all vehicles until October 1942. As such it was found in vehicles produced under the F2 designation as well as those made under the G designation. - Heavier armour (50+30mm). In reality, the first vehicles with additional armour were made in May 1942, but only eight out of 85 vehicles made had this feature. In June 1942 16 vehicles were made with additional armour out of 72 produced and only by July 1942 did all Ausf. Gs have this feature. - L/48 gun. In fact, the longer barrel was not introduced into production until April 1943. Hauptman (talk) 17:14, January 26, 2019 (UTC) So should I mix the F2 and G in the infobox or should I let as two different models ??? BTW off-topic I rewatch Episode 5 and I found Mako taking a feel on your dear Saori's boobs. Here it is :) Fox357magnum• • "I love Pasta"(Talk) 23:46, January 30, 2019 (UTC) Hard to say, the F2 still exist in the minds of the masses, it is really those of us who go deeper into the German Panzerwaffe who know that it is just an administrive designation that was given to the Panzer IV ausf. F to differentiate between the models equipped with the shory 75mm and the long 75, and the designation was changed just a few months later. That said, I do feel that with the information we have its best that we combine the two into one. The technical specifications are the same and the real difference only appeared later in the production of the ausf. G. And yes, I've seen it. How dare Mako do that to Saori! Leave the poor girl alone. Hauptman (talk) 13:35, January 31, 2019 (UTC) Consider Saori lucky that it was not raging lesbian Hana, here are some examples of what could happen to her :) Fox357magnum• • "I love Pasta"(Talk) 15:59, January 31, 2019 (UTC) Why is my precious Saori always the buttmonkey????? Why..........???? Hauptman (talk) 20:18, January 31, 2019 (UTC) Maybe you wanted to say the boobsmonkey... Fox357magnum• • "I love Pasta"(Talk) 21:01, January 31, 2019 (UTC) I got to say, Mako's pretty lucky herself since she got to grab Saori's boob and Miho's butt if we're only counting the anime stuff. Zenjamibu (talk) 05:30, February 1, 2019 (UTC) Why are you so mean to poor Saori, Fox? What did she ever do wrong to you? Hauptman (talk) 21:46, February 1, 2019 (UTC) I'm no mean I love Saori-san. Look she even duplicate for me. What a lovely girl. Fox357magnum• • "I love Pasta"(Talk) 23:23, February 1, 2019 (UTC) Leopard Tank Destroyer Hi Hauptman I've been setting out an Austrian school which uses a few German prototypes, when I was looking around and researching vehicles, I came across these tank destroyers based on the Leopard chassis, heres a blogpost and a few concept renders: http://ftr.wot-news.com/2016/07/07/modern-german-tank-destroyer-line/ https://mendur.artstation.com/projects/5J0KA I wanted to get you're opinion on them as I've been struggleing to find any sort of infomation on them. Thanks, Kwarduk Kwarduk (talk) 13:04, January 31, 2019 (UTC) Hey Kwarduk, to be honest this is a new one to me as I haven't come across it before though given that according to the claim that it is from the 80's that doesn't really surprise me conventional tank destroyer had fallen out of favor by then. Even Germany was by then converting their Kanonenjagdpanzer into Jaguar 1 and 2 Raketenjagdpanzer. But if you're looking for a tankdestroyer with an Austrian school than why not pick the Austrian build SK-105 Kürassier or if it you want it to be German you could look into the proposal to rearm the Kanonenjagdpanzer with the 105mm L7 derived gun. Hauptman (talk) 13:56, January 31, 2019 (UTC) Hi Hauptman I have planned for this school to have two Kürassier's, and also the VT-1-1 turretless MBT (mostly for shock factor, seriously the thing has two guns), and also a few oddball German Cold War and World War prototypes which I had left over, such as the Leopard 1A Prototype, VK 45.02, VK 36.01, things like that I will take in you're suggestion of the Kanonenjagdpanzer 105, and that tank will probably end up being the fourth 1960-1996 tank of the team if I can't find any infomation on the previous tank destroyers I mentioned. Thanks, Kwarduk Kwarduk (talk) 15:44, January 31, 2019 (UTC) Ah yes, the VT-1-1, that oddball creation. I saw one of these at the Panzermuseum a couple of years ago, such an odd looking vehicle. Hauptman (talk) 19:40, February 2, 2019 (UTC) T-34-88 Hi Hauptman recently i've been visiting a lot of pages in tank encyclopedia, and i came across the T-34 mit 8.8cm cannon, which is basically a captured german T-34 with an 88mm kwk 36 that the tigers use http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/T-34-mit-88-tiger-gun1.jpg yes i know its fake and all about how its photoshopped but i want to really know, : Is a T-34 tank able to Mount a regular 88mm cannon, how does it affects the crew, the recoil, the weight and all that? Richie230 (talk) 09:05, February 4, 2019 (UTC) Hey Richie, it could in all likelyhood mount the 8.8cm Kwk 36 L/56 gun but the turret would likely need some considerable reworking in order to fit this larger, and therefor heavier, gun in the turret. To what degree, the crew lay-out, recoil, and ammunition storage would be affected is difficult to say as nobody seems to have done much into looking as to how much space the larger gun would eat up inside the turret. Hauptman (talk) 12:37, February 4, 2019 (UTC) Thanks Hauptman, Anyway, on the subject of german Tanks, im in a process of making a Story, a lot like kwarduk's one where i will expand the selection to some experimentals and even paper tanks from the 50's. im considering adding the VK 30.02 DB and the E-100 mit Krupp's 150mm Maus 2 turret but that's all for German line. i'm struggling alot for Kuro's cause most Experimentals on german tanks are almost all papers, even though im in the middle of considering the E-50, the Panther II mit 7.5cm (or 88mm for once but i doubt the schmalturm would house such a big gun) and the VK 100.01 P. got any suggestions, i am open for another nation as well, especially French, Japanese and Polish tanks Richie230 (talk) 13:38, February 4, 2019 (UTC) I am in general not a fan of paper designs only as 9 times out 10 this often boils down to scribble on a napkin into which another person blew their nose before throwing it in the garbagecan. And very often the people wanting all of the prototypes/napkinwaffe are people whose sole source of information is a game like WoT. The major problem that you run into with a paper only design is that you have no way of knowing how and if it will work, what the speed of the vehicle will be, how its weight will affect the mobility. With just about every tank that was build during WWII the same rule would apply, the specifications as specified on paper would always differ from the actual tank that was build as problems encountered during building and testing the vehicle will demand changes to be implemented. The E50 is a fine example of a paper tank that is more fake than real as the project was still stuck on the drawingboard, furthermore there are no known records of its turret, armament, engine or armor specifications. One cannot even make a guess on what the tank's weight would have been, how this would have affected ts mobility and speed. Panther II never had any other gun than the 7.5cm Kwk 42 L/70, same gun as what was mounted on the Panther. The Panther II project already ended in May 1943 and this also means that the Schmalturm (which began development in early 1944 was never meant for it), the Schmalturm was solely intendid for usage in the Panther ausf. F and in late 1944 there is a project to mount the long 8.8cm kwk 43 L/71 in a modified Schmalturm, design sketches, blueprints, and a wooden model were build before the war came to an end. The VK100.01 is one of those tanks that in terms of appereance looks more or less accurate but when it comes to the way the stats are presented in a game like WoT it becomes an abomination with armor that is far beyond the actual specifications and armerment available that was never planned. The tank briefly existed in design sketches as part of a series of designs that would eventually result in the Maus. Hauptman (talk) 19:52, February 6, 2019 (UTC) Hey People If you don't mind me cutting into this coversation, I saw that you mentioned the lack of infomation on the E-50, well I did do some looking, and I found these two webpages which may contain some infomation: http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2017/04/e-50-and-e-75-story-of-failed.html http://fingolfen.tripod.com/eseries/e50.html These may be of use, you can be the judge of that Kwarduk Kwarduk (talk) 20:06, February 6, 2019 (UTC) To me they don't contain any new information, the first link shows that there are only vague ideas but nothing concrete. The 2nd link goes to a site with some horribly outdated information. Hauptman (talk) 20:14, February 6, 2019 (UTC) Yeah, I can see your concerns, I've also been planning to include this tank within one of my future projects, and I've been busy trying to collect as much infomation on it as I could to get a good understanding to how it would perform in a battle (any concrete sources you may have would be appreciated) but thats all I had, apologuies for interrupting your conversation. Kwarduk Kwarduk (talk) 20:25, February 6, 2019 (UTC) It's the problem that you will run into with a paper design that did not even get all that far on the drawingboard, there is so much information that is simply not there because the stages at which you can get that information was never reached. Trying to figure out how the E50 would have performed is really an effort in futility you don't know its weight, the engine, transmission, width of the tracks, ground pressure, groundclearance, etc etc etc. There is not really any concrete source with regards to the E50, just small, very generic, tidbits here and there. Some books you can try are Panther & Its Variants or Special Panzer Variants: Development- Production- Operations from Spielberger though keep in mind that these books will only contain some very generic information as they cover a broad subject. Hauptman (talk) 20:40, February 6, 2019 (UTC) Ok, I'll take a look at what you suggested and use that in my project when the time comes, at least this tank did exist in some form in reality so thats good enough for me, but I will need to tread carefully when it comes to its inclusion. Cheers, Kwarduk Kwarduk (talk) 20:59, February 6, 2019 (UTC) Thanks Hauptman, paper tanks could be a hassle to talk but it is a fun topic to talk about, i do have to agree with kwarduk here, that if a tank has a complete blueprint that would be enough of a viable reason for me, and not some made up prototype or fill in on uncomplete blueprint like most of the tanks WoT did (looking at you LTTB, and you Waffentrager E-100) but seriously, you two been much of a help to me on my project so once again, thanks Richie230 (talk) 23:14, February 6, 2019 (UTC) @Kwarduk, saying that the E50 existed is basically how far it got, apart from that there is almost nothing to work with. Sad reality is that this tank never got all that far before the end of the war terminated the process in its early development. Incorperating an E50 into the story will go very easy with the wotties as they are not the brightest of people, fine example is them thinking that the T28 and T95 are 2 different vehicles *sigh* but to anybody with some knowledge it will raise eyebrows. @Richie, I certainly agree with you that discussing a paper design only can make for a very interesting, as wel as a creative, discussion but it does require that the people partaking in the discussion have a certain degree of understanding what they are talking about and not pull information just from a videogame and I see that far too much for my liking. A vehicle that did exist in blueprints only is a vehicle that is legal to use according to the rules but one does need the consent of the JSF. One big problem however that a lot of people cannot tell the massive difference between existing in blueprints and being a design sketch, this is not helped by WG constantly claiming that a lot of their fake tanks 'existed in blueprints only' which is just their way of saying that they sucked it out of their thumb. It is not just the those 2 you mentioned, more than half the game is filled with fake tanks, the Chinese have an entire fake tank branch with their tank destroyers, many actual tanks have ficticious components or unhistorical stats just so that they can be shoved into their respective tiers. That is why I personally prefer to stick with stuff that was actually build and deployed in combat as you have the information one would need. Hauptman (talk) 09:54, February 8, 2019 (UTC) yeah i know it isn't just those 2 but for me they were the most obvious examples. i wouldn't as very much put them right as it is, but i did my research, looking into history, blueprints and as i said, i only consider those with a complete blueprint viable tanks for me and be really careful of fabricated research and fake tanks and seriously, the entire chinese tank lines were as very much full of bs as the north koreans claimed the won the 2014 world cup. its like the entire staff of WG are smoking crack one night and come up with those tanks Richie230 (talk) 12:48, February 8, 2019 (UTC) And it is a good thing that you are doing your own research, diving into the books is still the best way to learn more about a tank and even to this day there is no substitute for a proper book written by an actual historian. Most online sources that people love to quote are derived from books but with a lot of them there is the ever present risk that site's creator personal bias seeps in. Hauptman (talk) 12:23, February 9, 2019 (UTC) GT101 Hi hauptman... Sorry i have to made another thread, but this topic would require a separate thread so, a while ago, ive been stumbling about this article about the 'ultimate upgrade for Panthers' and basically, they mount a modified BMW 003 Gas turbine engine on a Panther tank called the GT101 (there's also GT102 and 103) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT_101 http://lurch2.blogspot.com/2014/11/gt-101-gas-turbine-engines-for-use-in.html well the only info i can dig through is an account about it was tested on a jagdtiger hull and it was approved to be put on the panther. there was also claim from people in several forum that the speed would increased to 98km/h. (i can already hear leopon team drooling over there) should be it true, the hp/ton ratio would be like 27hp/ton, higher than any other ww2 tank, but that's basically the thing i can dig, so i would like your opinion about this thing, and if you can, link me with some more detailed article about the GT101 project should you run into one Richie230 (talk) 15:18, February 9, 2019 (UTC) Panther and question Hey Hauptman !! I see you begin the renovation of the Panther, that's good thanks for helping. Recently I've been overburdened by the Panzer IV main page and now that's the gallery. So too much work to do at work and the wiki :). While gathering images to put in the Panzer IV gallery in the 5th chapter of the GuP manga after the match against St.Gloriana I saw a tank towing the Panzer IV and I don't manage to recognize it. Could you help me ??? Thanks. Fox357magnum• • "I love Pasta"(Talk) 15:26, March 24, 2019 (UTC) Hey Fox, yeah, I'm going to try and get off my lazy ass and try to to be productive again on this wiki. Might help me get out of this unproductive, increative mood that I've been in for months. As for the tank, that's pretty simple, M32 TRV which is the recovery variant of the M4 used by the Americans though I can't be sure about which subvariant it is. Hauptman (talk) 15:46, March 24, 2019 (UTC) I know what you mean I too was pretty lazy recently. It's hard to be productive these days especially when I renovate the tanks gallery part. Now that you mention it, the chassis is the same as the Sherman. I had doubt. Thanks Fox357magnum• • "I love Pasta"(Talk) 02:52, March 25, 2019 (UTC) About the Song Page layout Hey Captain. What do you think of the lyrics layout I'm working on my Sandbox? If you approve it, I will added it to every song page (with exception of some without Lyrics). Also, feel free to give me your feedback. ~CC~ Central General • • "Sturmgeschütz General" (Talk) 20:38, March 29, 2019 (UTC) Hey Central, been a while since I last saw you here. Had a look at the page that you mentioned, I like the look of it but somehow I get the impression that it looks a little too long with having to scroll down. Of course you'd have to run this through with Fox as well to get his opinion but might it be possible to have a single box with 3 tabs instead? Hauptman (talk) 09:20, March 30, 2019 (UTC) Saori lap pillow Hey Hauptman, This one is for you :) Fox357magnum• • "I love Pasta"(Talk) 22:56, April 1, 2019 (UTC) How much I envy them. Hauptman (talk) 14:34, April 2, 2019 (UTC) He he he ! I knew you'ld like it and for 10 yens its really cheap to rest on delicious plumpy tights. Droooool. You want to kill me aren't ya ??? '':) Fox357magnum• • "I love Pasta"(Talk) 22:51, April 2, 2019 (UTC) ''cocks MG42 Who me? Oh no... Hauptman (talk) 17:32, April 3, 2019 (UTC) As you notice I dodge every single bullet :) Fox357magnum• • "I love Pasta"(Talk) 19:33, April 8, 2019 (UTC) Scheisse Hauptman (talk) 19:42, April 8, 2019 (UTC) Type 3 Chi-Nu Kai Hey Hauptman, A user post something on the Chi-Nu page something concerning a Chi-Nu Kai, a Chi-Nu with a Chi-To turret and gun. Does this thing exist or if this is some Wargaming bullshit again ???? Thanks. Fox357magnum• • "I love Pasta"(Talk) 21:28, April 7, 2019 (UTC) Hey Fox, it does exist, here is the history for it: By 1945, the Type 5 75mm anti-tank cannon had finished its development. The cannon was successfully mounted in tanks such as the Na-To prototypes, the Chi-To prototypes & the two completed production model Chi-To’s, and the Chi-Ri prototypes. These prototype tanks were nearly done with testing, and would be capable of reaching mass production by the end of the war in sufficient numbers, but Japan did not have the time. In order to shorten the time in which the new anti-tank cannon could see operational status in vehicles, the Chi-Nu (which had been in production since 1943) was selected to become the rushed answer to Japan's problems once again. The Chi-To had been accepted into service as the Type 4. The tank's prototypes had been designed with a turret size larger than the production units. It was decided to use these, which were still equipped with Type 5 75mm cannons, to be mounted on the Chi-Nu chassis. In March of 1945, the Imperial Staff Office took one of the prototype Chi-To turret’s and mounted it onto Chi-Nu chassis No. 37 of Showa 19. The tank was labeled as the Chi-Nu Kai. On March 19th, the Chi-Nu Kai was sent to the Irago Firing Ground’s and performed a number of trial tests to determine the combat capability of the Type 5 75mm cannon. Test results came out overwhelmingly positive, and almost immediately the tank was scheduled for production, but the production model Chi-To turret design was chosen over the prototype turret design. Supposedly a few production models were build. Hauptman (talk) 14:38, April 8, 2019 (UTC) Thanks for your answer. As your talk page was a little overburden I took the liberty of archiving from 2017 to 2018 if you don't mind. Fox357magnum• • "I love Pasta"(Talk) 19:33, April 8, 2019 (UTC) Thanks man. I absolutely suck at archiving. Hauptman (talk) 19:43, April 8, 2019 (UTC) Maresal TD Hey Hauptman, I saw your wrote in your argument with Lanius that on the Count manga it was the Maresal that shot on Kay's tank, but honestly I didn't manage to locate it in the manga because the Maresal have quite a unique shape. Fox357magnum• • "I love Pasta"(Talk) 23:01, April 10, 2019 (UTC) It's in the last page that shows the Count tanks of the newest chapter, the one with the tarot card at the bottom, there are 5 images of Count tanks, the T-4 at the top, R2 to the left, a T-38G to the left, another T-38G on the bottom left hiding insid a house, and on the bottom right you'll see a vehicle with sloping rear hiding in the bushes, one can see 38t style roadwheels which were a feature on the later prototypes of the Maresal. Hauptman (talk) 14:41, April 11, 2019 (UTC) If you don’t mind me cutting in here, I have also seen this tank and wondered what it was, but looking at it closer, I have to disagree that the suspension is based on the 38(t) Personally when I look at it, the road wheels look more like T-70 road wheels rather that 38(t) ones (there’s a T-38 on the same page, and looking back and forth, they are different upon close inspection). Also if you look closely in front of the wheels, you can barely make out what looks like torsion arms, the T-70 had torsion bar suspension, while the 38(t) had leaf springs. In my opinion, I think this could be the M-04 or earlier version of the Maresal. Kwarduk Kwarduk (talk) 15:26, April 11, 2019 (UTC) I can't tell what suspension it has in that drawing, the angle makes it impossible to tell. The roadwheels also look far too big to of the T-70. Hauptman (talk) 15:35, April 11, 2019 (UTC)